oversight

Military Bases: Information on Air Logistics Centers

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1990-09-10.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

GAO   E’act,Sheet f’or the Honorable
      Vi<: Fazio, House of Representatives




      MILITARY BASES
      Information on Air
      Logistics Centers



                                                             3
                                                    IllI
                                                    142398




                            RELEASED
      RESTRICTED --Not to be released outside the
      General Accounting Once unless specifically
      approved by the Offlce of Congressional
      Belations.
                   United States
‘GAO               General Accounting Office
                   Wmhington, D.C. 20548

                   National Security and
                   International Affairs Division

                   B-240995

                   September 10,lQQO

                   The Honorable Vie Fazio
                   House of Representatives

                   As you requested, we obtained selected data on the performance and
                   capacity for depot maintenance operations at the five Air Force Air
                   Logistics Centers (ALC). The five ALCS are Ogden AU=, Hill Air Force Base,
                   Utah; Oklahoma City ALC, Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma; Sacramento
                   ALC,McClellan Air Force Base, California; San Antonio AX, Kelly Air
                   Force Base, Texas; and Warner Robins ALC, Robins Air Force Base,
                   Georgia.


                   Each AU: is assigned responsibility for maintaining, modifying, and
Results in Brief   repairing specific types of aircraft, engines, and reparable parts. The
                   ALCShave different missions and facilities and consequently cross com-
                   parisons between them are of limited value, according to Air Force
                   officials.

                   Some indicators of performance are the number of aircraft on which
                   maintenance is completed, the number of engines and other items
                   repaired, and labor hours expended annually on depot maintenance. For
                   example, in fiscal year 1989, the number of aircraft on which mainte-
                   nance was completed ranged from 62 at the San Antonio AL,Cto 291 at
                   the Ogden ALC;however, the type of aircraft were different, and the
                   nature and extent of maintenance performed may have varied. Only two
                   ALCSrepair aircraft engines. In fiscal year 1989, 5,029 engines were
                   repaired at the San Antonio ALC and 1,372 were repaired at the
                   Oklahoma City AJX.

                   Some indicators of capacity are the size of maintenance facilities and the
                   depot maintenance work force. For example, the square footage of facili-
                   ties, such as hangars, machine shops, and test facilities, ranged from 2.7
                   million at the Warner Robins AK! to 3.9 million at the San Antonio ALC.
                   The work years expended on depot maintenance ranged from about
                   6,000 at the Sacramento ALC to about 8,000 at the Oklahoma City ALC.

                   The Department of Defense is currently evaluating depot maintenance
                   operations to determine how best to lower the overall cost while
                   retaining essential operating capability. The Secretaries of the military
                   services are scheduled to submit their coordinated long-range plan to the
                   Assistant Secretary of Defense for Production and Logistics by October


                   Page 1                                   GAO/NSIADW-287FS   Air Logistic   Centers
              B-2409Bi5




              1, 1990. One option being considered is to increase the work performed
              by one military service for another. The Air Force is considering the pos-
              sibility of reducing or perhaps removing all depot maintenance activity
              from one ALC. Air Force Logistics Command officials told us that per-
              formance is not a major factor in their analysis of options to reduce or
              possibly remove aircraft maintenance work from one ALC.


              The data contained in this fact sheet were obtained at the Air Force
Scopeand      Logistics Command in Dayton, Ohio. We did not verify or analyze the
Methodology   data or question the methodology used to compile it. Because of our lim-
              ited objective, we did not determine the reasons for, or the significance
              of, changes or trends in data. Based on discussions with Air Force Logis-
              tics Command officials and our review of documentation, we judg-
              mentally selected which indicators of performance and capacity on
              which to collect data. We conducted our work during August 1990.

              Because of the short time available to complete our work, we did not
              obtain written agency comments on this fact sheet. However, Office of
              the Secretary of Defense and Air Force officials did review our draft
              and cautioned us about comparing ALCS based on performance data. Air
              Force Logistics Command officials stated that they do not generally
              make direct comparisons because of the unique work loads, operations,
              and specialized facilities of each Center. For example, officials said it is
              difficult to compare the B-1B and F-16 aircraft on selected performance
              indicators because of inherent differences in systems, the types of main-
              tenance problems encountered, and the years of available maintenance
              experience. These officials noted that while comparing a Center’s actual
              performance against its plan is an appropriate management tool for the
              Center Commander, it may not be meaningful to compare centers that
              maintain different systems.

              Appendix I provides data on indicators of production, productivity,
              quality, resources and capacity, and financial information. Appendix II
              briefly describes the depot maintenance missions assigned to the five
              ALCS. Appendix III lists the major contributors to this fact sheet.



              Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further
              distribution of this fact sheet until 30 days from its issue date. At that
         Y    time we will send copies to the Chairmen of the House and Senate
              Armed Service Committees and other interested parties.



              Page 2                                    GAO/NSIAIHO-287FS   Air Logistic   Centers
E240995




Please contact me at (202) 276-8412 if you or your staff have any ques-
tions concerning this fact sheet.

Sincerely yours,




Donna M. Heivilin
Director, Logistics Issues




Page 3                                 GAO/NSIADw)-287F’S Air Loglatlc Centera
Contents


Letter
Appendix I
Depot Maintenance        Production                                                                 ii
                                                                                                    7
Data for Air Force Air   EayGtivitY                                                                 8
Logistics Centers        Resources and Capacity                                                     8
                         Financial Information                                                     10

Appendix II
Depot Maintenance
Missions Assigned to
the Air Logistics
Centers
Appendix III
Major Contributors to
This Fact Sheet
Tables                   Table I. 1: Aircraft Work Completed
                         Table 1.2: Reparable Work Completed
                         Table 1.3: Engine Work Completed
                         Table 1.4: Direct Production Hours
                         Table 1.6: Percent of Aircraft Maintenance Completed on
                             Time
                         Table 1.6: Average Daily Hours of Direct Labor Per                          8
                             Maintenance Employee
                         Table 1.7: Estimated Productivity Savings
                         Table 1.8: Customer Quality Complaint Rates
                         Table 1.9: Maintenance Facilities
                         Table I. 10: Maintenance Equipment
                         Table I.1 1 Fiscal Year 1989 Depot Maintenance Work
                             Force
                         Table I. 12: Fiscal Year 1989 Financial Operating Results                 10




                         Page 4                                  GAO/NSIAD-80487PS Air Lqjlatic Centem
    Content4




Y
    Abbreviations

    ALC        Air Logistics Center
    TRC        Technology Repair Center


    Page 5                                GAO/NSIAl’WO-287FS   Air Logistic   Centers




                                     ‘.
Appendix I

Depot MaintenanceData for &r ForceAir
LogisticsCenters

                                     This appendix presents selected performance and capacity data on
                                     depot maintenance operations at the five AIL%. The data show the main-
                                     tenance work accomplished by AIX personnel. Data does not include
                                     work accomplished by contractors and through interservice agreements.
                                     Air Force officials cautioned against making direct comparisons among
                                     the ALCS on individual performance indicators because of differences in
                                     work loads and specialized operations assigned to each ALC.


                                     Table I.1 shows the number of aircraft on which maintenance work was
Production                           completed. Maintenance work includes programmed depot maintenance,
                                     inspections, and modifications.

Table 1.1: Aircraft Work Completed
                                                                                          .Fiscal
                                                                                             _---- mar
                                                                                                    --.
                                     Air Loglrtlcs Center               1985       1986         1987          1988          1989
                                     Ogden                               445        492         340            256           291
                                     Oklahoma City                       173        215         191            148           126
                                     Sacramento                          295        264         243            224           222
                                     San Antonio                          67         71          81             64            62
                                     Warner Robins                       296        207         158            125           189


                                     Table I.2 shows the number of reparables on which work was com-
                                     pleted. Reparable items are subsystems and components of weapon sys-
                                     tems and equipment, such as avionics, life support equipment, and flight
                                     control instruments. The Air Force also refers to reparables as
                                     exchangeables.

Table 1.2:Reparable Work Completed
                                     Items in thousands
                                                                                          Fiscal year
                                     Air Logistics Center              1985        1986       1987            1988          1989
                                     Oaden                               152        160         165             128          119
                                     Oklahoma City                       287        291         276             212          195
                                     Sacramento                          201        193         184             150          155
                                     San Antonio                         186        230         257             167          133
                                     Warner Robins                       230        219         206             158          159


                                     Table I.3 shows the number of engines repaired by       ALC.   Only Oklahoma
                                     City and San Antonio ALCS repair aircraft engines.




                                     Page 6                                    GAO/NSIAD-90-287FS         Air Logistic   Centers
                                     Depot Maintenance    Data for Air Force Air
                                     Logbticr Centere




Table 1.3: Engine Work Completed
                                                                                                       Fiscal year
                                     Air Loaistics Center                           1985        1988       1987          1988          1989
                                     Oklahoma City                                  1,271      1,573       1,250         1,093        1,372
                                     San Antonioa                                   7,031      7,034       6,697         5,575        5,029
                                     ‘San Antonio engine work load includes engine modules and gas turbine engines

                                     Table I.4 shows the actual hours of direct labor expended annually on
                                     depot maintenance.

Table 1.4: Direct Productlon Hour8
                                     Labor hours in thousands
                                                                                                       Fiscal year
                                     Alr Loolatlcs Center                           1985        1988       1987          1988          1989
                                     Ogden                                         8,512       8,888       8,370         7,412        7,980
                                     Oklahoma City                                 9,780      10,560      10,361         8,873        8,657
                                     Sacramento                                    7,578       7,905       7,686         6,771        6,710
                                     San Antonio                                   9,281       9,637       9,566         8,542        9.107
                                     Warner Robins                                 7,693       7,914       7,752         7,037        7,837




                                     Table I.6 shows the extent to which each ALC completed scheduled main-
Productivity                         tenance on time. It compares the number of aircraft completed on
                                     schedule to the total number worked on. We were unable to readily
                                     obtain data for fiscal years 1986 and 1986.

Table 1.5: Percent of Alrcrrft
Maintenance Completed on Time                                                                          Fiscal year
                                     Air Logistics Center                           1987                    1988                       1989
                                     Ogden                                           100                     100                         99
                                     Oklahoma City                                   100                      97                         99
                                     Sacramento                                       95                      96                        100
                                     San Antonio                                      82                      40                         35
                                     Warner Robins                                    88                      34                         46


                                     Table I.6 provides a measure of labor productivity in terms of daily
                                     hours of output per maintenance employee, including mechanics, man-
                                     agers, and support staff. Hours of output are based on an estimate of
                                     direct labor hours needed to complete maintenance tasks.




                                     Page 7                                                 GAO/NNAD-90-287FS        Air Logistic   Centers
                                            Appendix I
                                            Depot Maintenance     Data for Air Force Air
                                            Logbtlce Centers




Table 1.8: Average Dally Hour8 of Direct
Labor Per Maintenance Employee                                                                                  Fiscal year
                                            Air Logistics Center                           1985       1988          1987          1988         1989
                                            Ogden                                          3.91          4.00       3.96           3.86         3.79
                                            Oklahoma Citv                                  3.48          3.60       3.94           3.84         3.78
                                            Sacramento                                     4.12          4.08       4.11           3.84         3.92
                                            San Antonio                                    3.87          4.13       4.20           3.87         3.96
                                            Warner Robins                                  3.92          4.00       4.05           3.90         3.94


                                            Table I.7 shows the Arc-reported productivity savings resulting from a
                                            number of programs, including employee quality teams, work methods
                                            improvements, and capital investments to incorporate new technologies.

Table 1.7: Estimated Productivity Savings
                                            Dollars in millions
                                                                                                                Fiscal year
                                            Air Logistics Center                           1985       1988          1987          1988         1989
                                            Ogden                                           $33          $35         $42            $52          $80
                                            Oklahoma City                                    33           37          40             13           21
                                            Sacramento                                       21           39          47             29           49
                                            San Antonio                                     141           66         117            162          144
                                            Warner Robins                                    33           58          55             69           66




                                            Table I.8 shows the number of reparables reported defective by the cus-
Quality                                     tomer (user) expressed as a percent of total units repaired during the
                                            fiscal year.

Table 1.8:Customer Quality Complaint
Rates                                                                                                 Fiscal year
                                            Air Logistics Center               1988               1987                 1988                    1989
                                            Ogden                               1.72              1.66                 1.65                     1.66
                                            Oklahoma City                        .81               .72                  .84                      .88
                                            --___-
                                            Sacramento                          1.46              1.60                 1.44                     1.31
                                            San Antonio                          .50               .44                  .61                      .59
                                            Warner Robins                       2.11              1.97                 2.30                     2.16




                                            Table I.9 shows the value and size of maintenance facilities, which
Resourcesand                                include hangars, machine shops, and test facilities. Cost figures are esti-
Capacity ”                                  mated replacement costs.




                                            Page 8                                                GAO/NSIAD90-287FS           Air Logistic   Centers
                                    Appendix I
                                    Depot Maintenance     Data for Air Form Air
                                    Iqi.etics Centers




Table 1.9: Malntenanco Facllltlss
                                    Dollars in millions
                                                                        Buildings/area         Average age
                                                                        (Square feet in         of facilities
                                    Air Logistics Center                       millions)             (Years)         Replacement cost
                                    Ogden                                         302j3.6                   34                         $316
                                    Oklahoma City                                  4513.3                   33                          806
                                    Sacramento                                    12813.8                   28                          634
                                    San Antonio                                    E/3.9                    34                          400
                                    Warner Robins                                  6812.7                   28       -                  207


                                    Table 1.10 shows the average age and estimated replacement cost of the
                                    industrial plant equipment used in maintenance. Equipment includes
                                    such machinery as spot welders, drilling machines, lathes, grinders, and
                                    special test equipment.

Table 1.10: Mslntenance Equipment
                                    Dollars in millions
                                                                                       Average age of
                                                                                           equipment
                                    Air Loaistlcs Center                                       (Years)               Reolacement cost
                                    Oaden                                                              11                              $585
                                    Oklahoma City                                                      16                               477
                                    Sacramento                                                         13                               435
                                    San Antonio                                                        11                               460
                                    Warner Robins                                                      11                               545


                                    Table I. 11 shows the total number of workyears expended on depot
                                    maintenance during fiscal year 1989. The work force includes
                                    mechanics, machinists, welders, and electricians as well as managers
                                    and administrative staff.

Table 1.11 Fiscal Year 1989 Depot
Maintenance Work Force              Air Loglstlcs Center                                    Civilian             Military             Total
                                    Ogden                                                     6,696                      177          6,873
                                    Oklahoma City                                             8,085                      115          8,200
                                    Sacramento                                                6,183                      93           6,276
                                    San Antonio                                               8,022                      61           8,083
                                    Warner Robins                                             6.605                      66           6.671




                                    Page 9                                                  GAO/NSIAIMO-287FS        Air Logistic   Centers
                                         Appendix I
                                         Depot Maintenance     D~tui for Air Force Air
                                         Logbtlcs Centers




                                         Table I. 12 shows total revenues from depot maintenance performed by
Financial Information                    ALCpersonnel and related expenses for each Center. Operating result
                                         (gain or loss) is a reflection of how closely an ALC met its financial plan.

Table 1.12: Fiscal Year 1999 Financial
Operating Rerultr                        Dollars in millions
                                                                                                                                 Net operatln
                                         Alr Loalstlcs Center                                    Revenues        EXPeIWe8                row Pt
                                         Ogden-                                                         $349        -   $368                 ($19)
                                         Oklahoma City                                                   530             577                  (47)
                                         Sacramento                                                      367             377                  (10)
                                         San Antonio                                                     478             530                  (52)
                                         Warner Robins                                                   395             436                  (41)
                                         Note: Numbers in parentheses   indicate operating deficit.




                                         Page 10                                                      GAO/NSIAD~ZS7F8       Air Logistk   Centem
Appendix II

Depot Mtitenance MissionsAssignedto the Air
Logistics Centers

Ogden ALC, Hill Air Force   The Ogden ALCrepairs and modifies the F-4, F-16, and C-130 aircraft (a
Base, Utah                  recent addition). The Center also maintains Air Force missile systems
                            and components, including the Peacekeeper, Minuteman, Maverick, and
                            Sidewinder. Ogden is the technology repair center’ (TX) for weapons,
                            air munitions, landing gears, reconnaissance/photographic equipment,
                            and training and simulation equipment.


Oklahoma City ALC,          Oklahoma City ALCis the source of repair for the B-LB, B-62, C-136, and
Tinker Air Force Base,      E-3 aircraft. The Center has also been assigned repair responsibility for
                            the B-2 Stealth bomber. It is also one of the two Centers (San Antonio is
Oklahoma                    the other) that repairs and overhauls jet engines. Oklahoma City is the
                            TRCfor automatic flight controls, airframe and engine-related compo-
                            nents, engine instruments, and oxygen components.


Sacramento ALC,             Sacramento ALC is the designated source of repair for the F-l 11, A-7,
McClellan Air Force Base,   and A-10 aircraft. The Center recently began F-16 modification work
                            and has been assigned repair responsibility for the Advanced Tactical
California                  Fighter. Sacramento is the TRC for electrical components, flight control
                            instruments, tactical shelters, and ground communications-electronics
                            equipment.


San Antonio ALC, Kelly      The San Antonio AW maintains and repairs the B-62 and C-6 aircraft.
Air Force Base, Texas       The Center has been designated the source of repair for the C-17 air-
                            craft. The Center also repairs and overhauls a large number of engines
                            and engine modules. The Center is the TRC for electronic aerospace
                            ground equipment, electro-mechanical support equipment, nuclear com-
                            ponents, and automatic test equipment.


Warner Robins ALC,          Warner Robins AU repairs and modifies the F-16, C-141, and C-130 air-
Robins Air Force Base,      craft. The Center is the TRC for life support systems, propellers, and air-
                            borne electronics. The airborne electronics work load includes more than
Georgia                     300 avionics systems and almost 10,000 parts and components.




                            ‘Under the technology repair center concept, selected homogeneous maintenance work loads are
                            assigned to a single center rather than maintaining capabilities at multiple locations.



                            Page 11                                              GAO/NSlAD-90-287FS     Air Logistic   Centers
 Appendix III                                                                                   ” *

 Major Contributors to This Fact Sheet


                         Joan B. Hawkins, Assistant Director
 National Security and   Raymond C. Cooksey, Evaluator-in-Charge
 International Affairs
 Division, Washington,
 DC.

                         Bruce D. Fairbairn, Site Senior
 Cincinnati Regional     Laurie A. Rossvanes, Evaluator
 Office




(398060)                 Page 12                              GAO/NSIAD-90-287FS   Air Logidc    Centers
‘I’t~ltq)hollt’   202-2756241